Bears Ears Closures Begin

LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-17 AT 11:55PM (MST)[p]
That's right, a road that was once public through state-owned land was sold to Lyman Family Farms, who then locked the gate and closed the road.

San Juan County has not protected public access by cutting the lock or filing a lawsuit or charges.

I'm guessing Phil Lyman will schedule an ATV ride to get that public road back. Right?

Grizzly
 
Actually this is comical because a local who has same values bought this and did to the environmentalist the same thing they are doing to us.
 
With that Name!

It Might be in Spite?











[font color="blue"]It Was them Damn Lake Trout that took them Elk
out!:D[/font]
 
That's funny? I guess I missed the joke. Is the new landowner only locking out "environmentalists." The article makes it sound like his gate and padlock prevents anyone from crossing the property via the public road.

I know this was a SITLA parcel but this situation is a foreshadow of things to come with the transfer of public lands. I am a respecter of private property rights but let's keep our public lands public.

-Hawkeye-
 
This article demonstrates both evils that occur with public lands in Utah...

The feds come in and designate a national monument so that no real profit can be made off the land by "us", and the state of Utah sells our public land to a private landowner, who then closes it off to everyone...

How do you pick one of those sides..?? I'm not sure there is a "lesser of two evils".

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
Though this landowner may be reacting to the monument designation, this is a common trend throughout the west- new landowner purchases land closes access that hasn't been formally reserved with an easement. This is the true biggest risk to your public land access since now it is trespassing to even walk this route. When the Feds close a route at least you can walk in. I love how you guys are blaming this on the govt rather than hold the landowner accountable for his actions. But hey i guess he is just appplying some "local control".
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-17 AT 08:39AM (MST)[p]sucks doesn't it. Now you know what it feels like. Freedoms you once had taken from you. Ironic.

How many roads have been shut off with out going through the proper procedures in san juan by BLM and FS, pushed by the enviromental groups.

It sucks Doesn't it.
 
You should file the paper work to have it re opened to the public. Then the Landowner should let you know that he is working on opening it back up but needs to have public imput first, then have some archaeological study done, and needs to have a study done on the certain plant types that are in the area to make sure they are okay, and in about 5 years when it hasn't been re opened, stage a protest.

It sucks doesn't it.
 
Teddy Roosevelt's foresight is the only reason this land is public land today. foresight is required to keep it public in new wave of land grabbing fascists. if a monument is the best option so be it.


TR would approve. so do I.









Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Cantkillathing, serious question here...

Are you more upset by the potential loss of access from a Monument designation, or because it wasn't a local that took your access?

I thought it was a potential loss of access (a conclusion I disagree with but a position I can respect due to its focus on keeping access for all of us).

But now it seems like you might be okay with public land being closed, it just depends who locked the gate (a position that is the EXACT reason to fight the land grab with everything we have since "local control" screws all of us every place but the one we live in).

Also, what's "local" to you? It sounds like Bluff residents are upset about the locked gate. They probably don't consider Lyman Family Farms to be "local".

Are only residents of San Juan County local? What about Mexican Hat or Moab or Monticello? Are the Native Americans that support the Monument "local"? Or is every Utah resident a "local"?

What about Rob Bishop (the champion of closing public land)? Is he a "local" even though he lives on the other side of the state?

Is "local" geography-based or opinion-based?

Grizzly
 
While the land owner is causing this issue, it is a result of the the bigger problem with monuments. Had this issue occurred and the in the immediate area was still BLM land, there is a very high chance that citizens could petition the BLM to create an alternate route and regain access. We have been working on this in the White River BLM field office. We had a chunk of land previously owned by a person who allowed access across 100 yards of private. A new owner took over locked the gate and blocked access to miles of public land. So far we have created an ATV by pass and at some point there are plans to create a full sized vehicle by pass.

Good luck creating such a go around on a monument.
 
The owner should have had a visit from the sheriff the day he put the lock on. Wait, he probably did when his cousin came over for dinner.

Dudes like cantkill will be the reason why everyone will lose public lands. They can't see the facts past their petty frustrations. The big bad feds won't let him do what ever he wants so lets sell it all and no one will be able to do anything.

The big bad feds closed a road. Boohoo. The big bad feds closed a road by my town and now that area gets hiked and rode more than it ever got drove. And the mountains in the area grow bucks most would love to tag.
 
Elks, your completely missing the point. This was state land that was sold to a private landowner. It really has nothing to do with the nm designation at this point. It is just a great example of how PLT and "local control" of lands in Utah would go. Somebody really screwed up on the easement if this doesn't get eventually opened back up but I am blown away that people are trying to tie this into the monument designation.
 
It's only 1.35 million acres. There must be another access road on the other side? Park there and walk in. TR would be proud of you.
 
I just think its comical is all. I dont like the fact that public property is lost in anyway or access. But you all cant see the fact that this already happens on public property as well. You all want to hang Phil Lyman for a protest to re open a road that was shut down, you were okay for it to be closed, but when a road is closed that you guys might be okay with then you wine about it. its the irony that make this comical. I will make this clear I dont like the fact of loosing public property, and I dont like how access to public property is being more and more restrictive. I didn't own a 4 wheeler until about 2 weeks ago, I dont have cattle.

Just get over yourselves and see the irony in all of this.

It sucks doesn't it.
 
elks96, you claim that if the land were BLM and not a Monument then this wouldn't be an issue. You miss the actual point, if this land was BLM land that WAS part of the Monument it would not be an issue because the road would be open.

It's the fact that the land was state-owned, and thus sold to a private party, that is the reason its now closed.

Far more state-land has been closed to public access than federal land in Utah (see BigFin's post on the other thread) and the Feds had a lot bigger chunk to sell to begin with. Yet, time and time again, it is indisputable that state-owned land is the land that gets locked forever.

Grizzly
 
>then you would
>understand our reasoning of wanting
>to run our grounds governed
>by our own elected officials,
>and if they wanted to
>sale off public grounds they
>would be strung up.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID46/6728.html#24

Cantkillathing,

This is your quote from another thread. Here we have case where your elected official did indeed sell public lands owned by the State and this has led to an access dispute. Instead of your claim that you would have these elected officials "strung up" all you really do is throw up your hands and think it is "funny" and say "It sucks, doesn't it".

Couple of things are obvious your elected officials will sell publicly owned lands lands and you have no intention of stringing any elect official up for doing it.

Nemont
 
Those are State trust lands given to the states under the state trust land program. This is not the same as transferring Federal lands to the states. When this happens (and it's going to) we must be at the table voicing our concern and demanding these lands never be sold and access as it exists today never be denied. Each side talks about the hysteria and each side is right, you're both hysterical to an extent.
 
Your comparing apples to oranges. State land from the beginning was set up to sale or keep or do as they please for funding. BLM and Forest Service was not set up to sale. Am I wrong.
 
>Those are State trust lands given
>to the states under the
>state trust land program. This
>is not the same as
>transferring Federal lands to the
>states. When this happens (and
>it's going to) we must
>be at the table voicing
>our concern and demanding these
>lands never be sold and
>access as it exists today
>never be denied. Each side
>talks about the hysteria and
>each side is right, you're
>both hysterical to an extent.

DW,

Are you in favor of transfer of public lands to the state?

Nemont
 
Statutory and case law are pretty clear - public access to a road is not given up when land ownership transfers from public to private, unless the right of way is expressly rescinded by the governmental agency. There should be a public record of closure of the road if the public right of way was given up. Otherwise, this family farm is trying what many other landowners have tried, and failed when challenged.

If anyone is interested in further reading on the subject: http://sanpete.com/downloads/roads2.pdf
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-17 AT 10:10AM (MST)[p]>Your comparing apples to oranges.
>State land from the beginning
>was set up to sale
>or keep or do as
>they please for funding.
>BLM and Forest Service was
>not set up to sale.
> Am I wrong.

BLM and FS lands also were never set up to transfer the title to the states, I am I wrong?

The state sells their current land holdings but somehow the State of Utah will agree to keep any transferred lands public? Where would the get the funds to guarantee that? In addition why would the State agree to such a requirement?

Nemont
 
DW, you are right that we should demand, in the event the land grab passes, that land never be sold and access should remain.

I personally asked that of Mike Noel and he refused to put it in the Act. There is nothing in the law that says land will remain public. Also, the law specifically sets up tools to "dispose" of public land and the bank account is already functional to hold the funds once that land is sold.

The land grab proponents know dang well that public land will be sold and have already opened a bank account for the sole purpose of holding those funds. (This is also why big corporations are the largest donors of the land grab, because they'll be first in line to buy the public land.)

There is nothing in the law that says land won't be sold. The politicians repeat it to their supporters but that has as much teeth as, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."

Public land will be sold by the state, the law allows it, the state's own study says it will be necessary to fund the budget, and the plans for the money are already in effect.

Grizzly
 
>Those are State trust lands given
>to the states under the
>state trust land program. This
>is not the same as
>transferring Federal lands to the
>states. When this happens (and
>it's going to) we must
>be at the table voicing
>our concern and demanding these
>lands never be sold and
>access as it exists today
>never be denied. Each side
>talks about the hysteria and
>each side is right, you're
>both hysterical to an extent.
>

Ultimately the same landowner = state of Utah. Same end result. Utah has a long history which continues even today selling off their state lands. What makes you think this will change? I like how you say "this will happen". Believe it or not PLT is a very unpopular idea in other western states. That's part of the reason for all the resentment towards utahns. You guys keep re-electing senators and representatives pushing these ideas. Luckily I live in a state where our politicians get hammered for PLT.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-17 AT 10:30AM (MST)[p]Just so you all know, there is no County Road that runs through this property. County D roads are not a main County Road that is maintained by the county. The BLM doesn't consider County D roads as roads and can shut them down. D Roads are considered 2 track road.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-17 AT 10:31AM (MST)[p]>>Those are State trust lands given
>>to the states under the
>>state trust land program. This
>>is not the same as
>>transferring Federal lands to the
>>states. When this happens (and
>>it's going to) we must
>>be at the table voicing
>>our concern and demanding these
>>lands never be sold and
>>access as it exists today
>>never be denied. Each side
>>talks about the hysteria and
>>each side is right, you're
>>both hysterical to an extent.
>
>DW,
>
>Are you in favor of transfer
>of public lands to the
>state?
>
>Nemont


I see the writing on the wall and don't live in denial (colorado actually rogerthat). We better get involved in the process if we want these lands to remain as accessible as they are today no matter which government beuracracy has their name on the deed!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-17
>AT 10:30?AM (MST)
>
>Just so you all know, there
>is no County Road that
>runs through this property.
>County D roads are not
>a main County Road that
>is maintained by the county.
> The BLM doesn't consider
>County D roads as roads
>and can shut them down.
> D Roads are considered
>2 track road.

Does that change the fact that when this parcel was Utah State Trust land it was accessible and since the sell to a private entity it is no longer accessible?

Did the BLM shut down this road or did the new land owner?
 
Grizzly is correct. I met one-on-one with Ken Ivory of the American Land Council over a year ago. During our meeting, I expressed my concerns regarding the proposed transfer of public lands and the risk that those lands would be sold off by the state. I asked him if he would be willing to include a provision prohibiting the state from selling or disposing of those lands, and he told me that would not be possible. I am not a fan of current federal land management but I am scared to death of what will happen if the state gains control of those lands.

-Hawkeye-
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-17
>AT 10:31?AM (MST)
>
>>>Those are State trust lands given
>>>to the states under the
>>>state trust land program. This
>>>is not the same as
>>>transferring Federal lands to the
>>>states. When this happens (and
>>>it's going to) we must
>>>be at the table voicing
>>>our concern and demanding these
>>>lands never be sold and
>>>access as it exists today
>>>never be denied. Each side
>>>talks about the hysteria and
>>>each side is right, you're
>>>both hysterical to an extent.
>>
>>DW,
>>
>>Are you in favor of transfer
>>of public lands to the
>>state?
>>
>>Nemont
>
>
>I see the writing on the
>wall and don't live in
>denial (colorado actually rogerthat). We
>better get involved in the
>process if we want these
>lands to remain as accessible
>as they are today no
>matter which government beuracracy has
>their name on the deed!
>


I agree 100% with that. Some have been involved in that fight for years and continue to advocate for more access to public lands. Nobody has ever explained why state governments are more trustworthy then the Federal Government. You get access to a state politician with some high end booze and a prime rib dinner. They are cheaper to buy off then the big boys in DC.

Nemont
 
>Grizzly is correct. I met
>one-on-one with Ken Ivory of
>the American Land Council over
>a year ago. During
>our meeting, I expressed my
>concerns regarding the proposed transfer
>of public lands and the
>risk that those lands would
>be sold off by the
>state. I asked him
>if he would be willing
>to include a provision prohibiting
>the state from selling or
>disposing of those lands, and
>he told me that would
>not be possible. I
>am not a fan of
>current federal land management but
>I am scared to death
>of what will happen if
>the state gains control of
>those lands.
>
>-Hawkeye-

+1. Read this if you actually care about access to public lands. The focus needs to be shifted to making the current planning process work for the locals but of course work and congress have been mutually exclusive for a decade or more
 
Everybody needs to watch Randy Newberg's YouTube clip on the land transfer. He goes through the paperwork and shows exactly how Utah will sell the land. It is guaranteed to all be sold if it is tranferred. They're budget to break even on the lands requires oil at somewhere around $93/barrel and natural gas at around $7.50/McF. If they don't break even it is required for them to sell it.
 
Hate it when I throw a guy under the bus and then agree with him in the same thread. The land in this article is not state lands for all to use. It was sitla land which is under a different management agency. Every state has sold or privatized their school lands to some extent.

Utah would sell much of the federal lands if they get the transfer to the state to go thru.
 
I see paying $500K for 391 acres. Then you sell back a road easement for say $450K. I would bet a nickle that the deal was made way ahead of the auction.

DZ
 
Weird that a "two track" would be recorded on the deed: 2. Easement No. 2081, issued to San Juan County for roads for a perpetual term

Seems like all it should take is a visit from the County Sheriff to enforce the easement. A set of bolt cutters and let the traffic flow.

Nemont
 
Nemont, so if BLM shuts down a D road by just cutting down trees or also gateing them are you okay with someone to re open that road?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-17 AT 04:07PM (MST)[p]Ummm...I thought the issue here was that a private landowner who bought lands formerly owned by the State of Utah is locking the public out? Where did I say anything about the BLM and D roads? And what I am fine or not fine with?

You said this was a two track road and therefore wasn't recorded and you were just plain wrong about that. Go read the actual deed to the property and disclosures.

Don't conflate the two issues. The BLM shutting down a road is not the same thing as what is going on here.

Nemont
 
I Agree with Hawkeye!

Same Thing I've been Saying all Along!

I met one-on-one with Ken Ivory of the American Land Council over a year ago. During our meeting, I expressed my concerns regarding the proposed transfer of public lands and the risk that those lands would be sold off by the state. I asked him if he would be willing to include a provision prohibiting the state from selling or disposing of those lands, and he told me that would not be possible. I am not a fan of current federal land management but I am scared to death of what will happen if the state gains control of those lands.

-Hawkeye-








[font color="blue"]It Was them Damn Lake Trout that took them Elk
out!:D[/font]
 
The way I understand it, Was if that road was was Graded at any time by the county road dept it is then a county Rd for the rest of time.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Was it there prior to the passage of FLPMA IN 1976? It may be an RS2477 road. State of Utah has been fighting for those roads. Where are they now?
 
A guy locks a gate that crosses his property. Same thing I would do.
He bought and owns the property.
The only anger should be directed at the State of Utah, that plans to claim federal land, and then sell more.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-17 AT 09:19PM (MST)[p]>The way I understand it, Was
>if that road was was
>Graded at any time by
>the county road dept it
>is then a county Rd
>for the rest of time.
>
>
>"I have found if you go
>the extra mile it's Never
>crowded".


There's a bazillion ways for a road to get graded by the Govt without a public easement. The LO can trade access to the county/Blm/State in exchange for road maintenance, and that access might only be for certain entities and certain times. That happens a lot for radio towers.
 
>A guy locks a gate that
>crosses his property. Same thing
>I would do.
>He bought and owns the property.
>
>The only anger should be directed
>at the State of Utah,
>that plans to claim federal
>land, and then sell more.
>

Locking a gate accessing a road with a recorded public easement is a misdemeanor in most places (including San Juan County, I believe) . You may own the land, but you don't own the right to lock it up. That is one of various "rights" that may or may not be included when you purchase property (similar to buying land without mineral rights). The "Bundle of Rights" for real estate is not as clear as, "If I own it then I'll lock it up." There are many instances where that is not true.

This is an example of why an easement is recorded on title and disclosed by the seller, so the potential buyer knows exactly what's included in their purchase.

But you are 100% correct that this is a perfect scenario of what the State of Utah has in store for their land grab.

Grizzly
 
Not the same thing, If prior owner gave the right to have the road graded with the county 20-40 years ago, it gives them the right to maintain the road from then on, Seen this happen on a road north of town a few years ago, it had a lock gate(by landowner) that the county cut the lock off and that road dead end in a piece of school trust land and 40 ac of BLM and reopen open that road, it was decided that the county had graded that road in the pass so it was a county RD.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_9109.jpeg
Mega Bull for elkhunterUT
Back view .PNG
HUNT0603 - Copy1.JPG
BFD8DA03-6CD1-468C-9331-CE210125A93B.jpeg
20200817_061234.jpg
IMG_2176.jpeg
Side view.jpg
IMG_7487.JPG
efce1e7f49a3fef88e1629f1c6f53ded.jpg
59A30748-E38F-4E64-B0F2-0508C5D38AEB.jpeg
IMG_2185.JPEG
Back
Top Bottom